ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2018
Additional treatments, satisfaction, symptoms and quality of life in women 1 year after vaginal and abdominal pelvic organ prolapse repair.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality of Life Following Pelvic Organ Prolapse Treatments in Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Pelvic organ prolapse surgery and health-related quality of life: a follow-up study.BMC women's health · 2021Article
- Management of Postoperative Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) After Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) Repair.Current urology reports · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate additional treatments, symptoms, satisfaction and quality of life 1 year after vaginal and abdominal pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair.
methodsAdult women enrolled in a prospective POP database were reviewed. Baseline and outcomes data 1 year after surgery were collected including the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and mailed surveys. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact tests and t tests.
resultsOf 222 women, 147 (66%) had vaginal and 75 (34%) had abdominal repair. Vaginal group patients were older (64.1 vs. 59.7 years; p = 0.003), but other demographic characteristics did not differ. Vaginal group patients had lower baseline anterior and apical prolapse grades (anterior 2.7 vs. 3.1, p = 0.003; apical 2.1 vs. 3.1, p < 0.001). Baseline PFDI scores were similar. Scores improved significantly for both groups after 1 year, but 1-year PFDI scores were significantly higher in the vaginal group (45.6 vs. 32.6, p = 0.032). Scores were not different when adjusted for age and prolapse grade (p = 0.24). At 1 year, most patients in the vaginal and abdominal groups reported moderately/markedly improved overall symptoms (72/108 vs. 50/60, p = 0.030) and quality of life (89/101 vs. 54/59, p = 0.601). Most were satisfied with surgery (68/101 vs. 48/59, p = 0.067). Retreatment rates (pelvic floor physical therapy, medications, coping strategies, surgical procedures) were similar (34/109 vs. 15/62, p = 0.381). Vaginal mesh use did not affect additional treatments, patient satisfaction or symptoms.
conclusionsAlthough symptoms improve and most women are satisfied with surgery, about one in four women have additional therapy in the first year after POP repair.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.